Should a man that didn't want the baby pay maintenance

[dillydallybub]

So as the title says, should a man that didn't want a baby pay maintenance?
Please give me your thoughts and opinions

Many of the replies have discussed this too. It's different because women can have abortions, men can't, that's nature.

It's not anti abortion at all.

A man can't have an abortion. That's something that a woman chooses.

It's not like getting an extention on college work or something for a man, if he has sex then he runs the risk of impregnating his partner and her having the final say over having an abortion or not. He knows this.

A woman gets longer to decide because whatever happens after conception is happening to her body. By the time a child is there both parties have made their decisions and should be responsible for them.

You are centering the feelings of a man, who made the choice to have sex, over the child who didn't ask to be here. He absolutely should be financially beholden because it's his decisions that helped create the child.

I'm sure there have been similar replies, I didn't wade through the whole 25 pages.

I'm aware of how biology works. 'That's nature' as a means to shut down differing opinions isn't very clever. I don't think it's different at all - both parties should have a say on whether they want to be a parent. Both of them.

I'm no more centering a man's feelings than I am a woman's. If men are held to the standard that they have to deal with the consequences of pregnancy after sex then so does the woman.

I agree that if no steps (ie legal statement that they are against the pregnancy continuing) are taken during the pregnancy and the child is born then absolutely the man is responsible. But not if he would have chosen an abortion were he the pregnant one.

The woman does deal with the consequences. She has to either have an abortion or she goes through pregnancy and birth. On what planet do you think a pregnant woman isn't dealing with the consequences?

If she chooses to give birth she is financially responsible for the child anyway (also mentally and physically responsible, whereas a man simply gives 12% of his declared wages)

So, yes, you are centering the man's want to have sex, over the needs of the child he helped create.

Sad, but not surprising, that you can't see it, because we all know the poor men folk need to have sex after all 🤔

What an odd reply.

The only way to respond to such an odd viewpoint.

I have never heard of any convicted sex offender getting unsupervised contact with their children. I have heard, in some limited situations, of a convicted sex offender getting supervised visits with a child. In a situation where the offender is in prison, the baby is a newborn, and the father is a minor and has stated his wishes that the baby be adopted, you would be hard pressed to find a family court judge who does not consider adoption to be in the best interests of the child.

Abortions aren't about ducking out of parental responsibility, they are about ownership of ones own body. A woman has a right to choose that her body not be pregnant anymore, or to choose that her body not go through an abortion. A man's body has no part in retaining or ending a pregnancy, so he doesn't get a say.

I agree that a man's body isn't the one that is pregnant, and I agree that a woman can choose to not be pregnant, or to remain pregnant (although I don't completely agree that it is only her body she is making a decision about, but some realities are complicated by their very nature so sometimes the rights of one must be above the rights of the other).

But if a woman choose to continue with a pregnancy when she is clear that the father does not want that then that's fine, but it is her choice to do that, and she also chooses to accept the consequences of that decision - raising a baby alone.

Both parties were aware that having sex could result in the woman's body being pregnant.

But if a woman choose to continue with a pregnancy when she is clear that the father does not want that then that's fine, but it is her choice to do that, and she also chooses to accept the consequences of that decision - raising a baby alone.

Both parties were aware that having sex could result in the woman's body being pregnant.

And a man should never be able to coerce a woman into a medical procedure by refusing to support the child. The choice should not be 'easy opt out' for the man, which presumably also includes a 'no contact' clause (because he wants nothing to do with the child), or 'woman has to go through a potentially traumatic medical procedure' or 'child suffers and also doesn't know their father'.

The man gets off scott free and in return either the woman or child suffers physically and emotionally?

I agree. But the arguments here are 'if HE doesn't want a baby don't have sex' 'HE thinks you can consequence free shagging' 'sex can lead to babies, tough shit' etc are what I'm objecting to - switch the pronouns around and apply the same logic to the woman and you have forced birth - exactly the arguments the American far right trot out to justify their abortion ban. Women also know that sex leads to babies - 'don't want to be pregnant and put your body through that? Don't have sex. Don't want to have a traumatic abortion? Don't have sex.

If a woman doesn't want a baby, or to go through a traumatic medical procedure or for her or the baby to suffer physically and emotionally then SHE shouldn't have sex either. But no one is saying that, that's not an appropriate thing to say oh no. It's all about the man wanting consequence free shagging' - as if the woman isn't also allowed to want sex for pleasure and could possibly - shock - have to face the consequences.

@GoBackToTheStart

Regardless, I don't see how an exemption for boys would work in practice and am genuinely interested to know how you see the state 'being responsible' for it as you said earlier. Any exemption for having to 'pay' for a child couldn't just be for the father without being deeply misogynistic. The mother of a child conceived through rape is expected to provide for her own child,
But she is in a position to abort or adopt the child. She has the right to not be responsible.
This is the whole point. She can end her responsibility. But you are saying a boy who was sexually assaulted and had his sperm effectively stolen and used shouldn't have this right.

I don't think anyone would argue that happens a lot more frequently, but I haven't seen any threads demanding the state pays the equivalent of CMS for those girls and women to help with their costs where the rapist is imprisoned and can't pay CMS, or isn't known and can't be pursued.
There are benefits

switch the pronouns around and apply the same logic to the woman and you have forced birth - exactly the arguments the American far right trot out to justify their abortion ban.

But you can't switch the pronouns around precisely because of the fact that having to pay a portion of your salary, and physical trauma, are not comparable. There is never consequence free sex for a woman. She will always be the party that bears the physical and more substantial financial risk.

A baby has a right to be maintained. That has to be a fundamental right of any civil society. So what is the bigger issue? Women being forced into unwanted abortions, or men having their salaries docked? What happens if the man changes his mind but it's after the permissible period for abortions? What if there is not full clarity between the man and woman? It will end up in a he said/she said situation and ultimately the child loses out because we know fine well what happens when those situations go to court.

There are many, many laws around what has to happen with your money. It's not like people actively want to pay taxes, generally speaking, but the state imposes laws upon you in respect of money, because there is a public good in the distribution of money, just like there is a public good in ensuring children are provided for, however there is a fundamental right to decide what to do with your own body which is not overridden by the public good, because e.g. we don't want people to have to forcibly give up their organs to help other people in need of them.

A man loses the right to object after sex precisely because we cannot live in a world where forced abortion is the norm, including compelled abortion where the "choice" is a child raised poverty because its father has washed his hands of it, or a woman undergoing an unwanted abortion because the other parent has opted out. Women must be free to make a genuine choice over what happens with their body, which is why it is so important for men's contraception to be freely available. Abortion doesn't affect his body. That's the end of it.

Alternatively, no one has sex, including the men, for pleasure. How does that work for anyone? You think the men are going to be ok with that? Is that what evidence from across the world shows us? Sound swell. I'm sure everyone will be happy with that...

But she is in a position to abort or adopt the child. She has the right to not be responsible.
This is the whole point. She can end her responsibility. But you are saying a boy who was sexually assaulted and had his sperm effectively stolen and used shouldn't have this right.

She can "end her responsibility" because it is her body! She is choosing a medical procedure to occur on her own body! Anything other than that is condemning women. Abortions can fail. The morning after pill can fail. She may not find out fast enough to have an abortion. What then? Some sort of 'sorry you didn't sort it fast enough, here's some maintenance' state cover? All of this applies to girls too!

I would rather stricter laws around child abusers having residence and PR of a child, leaving the child parent free to give up their own PR, instead. It has significantly less potential for scope creep and results in the same end. The parent child is not responsible, financially or otherwise (unless they choose to be), for the child conceived by assault, and the abuser parent is not in a position of PR, and the child is provided for one way or another.

There are benefits

Not enhanced benefits to recognise that circumstance though, which is what you're asking for if the state has to somehow fund the equivalent payments or "take responsibility" for the father if the father was assaulted. Children born to a raped mother need to be sustained solely on the benefits the mother is entitled to claim, but a child born of an assaulted father is sustained by the mother + benefits? That is hardly fair to the resultant children.

Women in receipt of benefits get CMS. Men get benefits too which they pay CMS through. A baby is still being penalised because of its origin, which should not ever happen.

@GoBackToTheStart
The idea that a boy could be (the equivalent of ) raped and his sperm therefore stolen and then he is made to forever to tied to that child and financially responsible for that child is immoral and abhorrent

My point was specifically in relation to this sort of crime.

If a girl was raped she could end all connection to that child or even if there was a child. A boy victim of rape wouldn't have this optiion.

That would be the equivalent of underage girl victim of rape being forced to carry and keep the child.

No raped minor should be held responsible of anything.

We cannot start putting cracks in a child's basic right to be maintained and know where they come from, for any reason. The moment we do that, we are creating a value judgement of how much support a baby "deserves" based on their origin. The baby does not deserve less than other babies because its parent was the victim of a crime. The message would be "sorry you were conceived as a result of rape/assault, which we recognise is traumatic for you already, but you also deserve a poorer quality of life because of it and only one parent has to contribute". That, to me, is abhorrent.

As I said, I would prefer there to be a clearer way of removing the baby from the child abuser parent. That way, the father does have the right to determine whether to be involved and financially responsible or not, and as a by-product, won't be pursued for CMS. I don't think it is in the best interests of a baby to be raised by a sexual predator. "No maintenance responsibility"would be much too simple a solution, with unintended consequences, for a very complex issue - there are better ways of protecting everyone involved.

In respect of girls, what about all of those things I mentioned? If the abortion/MAP doesn't work? What if she's doesn't know that pregnancy can occur from what happened to her so doesn't say anything?What if she is too traumatised to come forward and it is too late by the time she does? Where is her "opt out" then? She'd be in exactly the same boat as the father except she'd also be left with the physical and emotional trauma of pregnancy and childbirth.

The fact that it is distressing to think of abused children as parents does not mean we can ignore the fact that, as devastating as the circumstance is, they are parents, and their baby has rights too.

I didn't realise I felt quite so strongly about this - sorry for the essays while I reel off my thoughts! Regardless of whether we agree or not, it's been an interesting discussion

I want to agree with you, and I do in a lot of ways, but I do think that much of what you're saying is coming from an emotive point of view in which you are very passionate about what you want to happen, not what is necessarily true.

If you are going to apply the don't want kids don't have sex rule to men then you have to apply it to women as well. Yes it's their bodies, yes there stakes are higher for them, yes choosing to have a abortion is traumatic but all of this is known to the woman beforehand. Is it unfair? Yes. Is it significantly more high-stakes for women? Yes. But if you can say 'duh, what did you think would happen' to men then, harshly, it also follows for the woman too. If you give women an extra 'chance' to make the decision to have a baby or not then that choice is hers.

As for your last paragraph about does the world 'want' to not have sex for pleasure well of course not. Lots of people - me and women - want to do lots of things and they want their own way. But no sex = no accidental babies, that's just a fact. If we could change the laws of biology and reality so that we were always 'happy' about everything the world would be different, and it's not. Some things are true even if you really really don't want them to be.

As an aside I don't agree that men should opt out in the majority of cases, I don't think people should be celibate, nor do I think that woman should pay for the sins of men because quite frankly I think we're all a bit tired of that nonsense. I just can't get behind some of the rhetoric being used for men here because they should have known better while allowing women to just be innocent victims who accidently became pregnant through no action of their own, but now get to make decisions for 3 people.

I’m assuming you’re only talking about the last couple of paragraphs of my post because I don’t think anyone would argue that raped and sexually assaulted children are actually victims and that “duh, what did you think would happen” doesn’t apply to them…

I’m not entirely sure what you’re getting at though. In my view, as part of a civilised society, a child’s right to be properly maintained has to be a priority over a parent’s right not to support them. I’m not sure why that is apparently as contentious as it seems to be.

A man’s right to determine whether a child is born ends at ejaculation, that’s just a quirk of biology. Therefore, he has to take steps beforehand to mitigate the risk of pregnancy. It is unfortunate that's those options are limited, but that is why we need better contraceptives for men.

Unless we promote forced birth as a society, a woman has to be able to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

We aren’t on the playground bickering over who has the next go on the swings, so the concept of an “extra chance” is just silly. She is making a medical decision about whether to have a procedure on her own body. The law shouldn’t incentivise or provide ways for third parties to coerce her into doing it.

Permitting abortion has clear benefits to society as a whole. I assume we don’t need to turn this into an abortion rights debate because I don’t think you’re advocating for forced birth…

Creating an exemption for men to not pay only benefits the man, while causing detriment to society as a whole, not least to his child but also the fact that it immediately makes it more likely that children will be born into poverty (or relative poverty), with poorer outcomes in terms of education and health, because of a lack of funds. Even if it isn’t poverty, the child will not have the quality of life it would otherwise have - again, detriment to the child, benefit to the man.

Why is it more important for a man to be able to have responsibility free sex and be 12% richer, than for a child to have a better quality of life if it is born?

To be honest, I’d say “it isn’t fair that women get an extra chance to decide because they can have an abortion so we should be able to opt out of financial responsibility” is a more emotive stance than “we need to continue ensuring children are appropriately supported by both parents”.

Not read the thread, but yes. He has a choice not to have sex.

A man takes a second or so to produce life.
A woman carries a child for 9 plus months, endangers her life to have a child, so yes it is entirely upto the body which carries this danger to have the final say in what happens.
As to the money charged to bring up a child paid by the absent party, they are responsible for this creation of life, they were not forced to have sex, everyone knows sex can lead to a baby...So in this case the man enjoyed the sex, he made a baby. So he will pay for this child.
The only way round this would be sign an agreement before sex , saying they would not pay if a child was created....i wonder if we do get the male pill how fast the men of this world will go see a doctor to sign up.

@GoBackToTheStart

I’m assuming you’re only talking about the last couple of paragraphs of my post because I don’t think anyone would argue that raped and sexually assaulted children are actually victims and that “duh, what did you think would happen” doesn’t apply to them…
If you read the thread you will see that many people do think that even in the case of a man or male child being sexually assaulted, they still should bear responsibility

In America in fact, sexually assaulted boys as young as 12 have been held responsible and they have been successfully sued later in life for money

It's crazy that a child especially of sexual assault should be held responsible for anything.
Does the baby deserve to be financed? Yes. But not by the victim of a sexual crime.

By the state even I would suggest. Because in no sensible universe should one child's rights be put above another child who was a victim of a hideous crime

@HucklefinBerry "In America in fact, sexually assaulted boys as young as 12 have been held responsible and they have been successfully sued later in life for money "

Could you provide sources for this, please?

If I could redesign the system, I would put HMRC in charge of collecting CS payments from absent parents, using all the tools they have in place for tax evasion. The resident parent would then receive payment from HMRC and these payments would be given regardless of whether the non resident parent paid. And the amount paid would reflect the actual cost of raising the child, it's ridiculous that men are paying £300 per month while the mother is spending £1,500 per month on childcare so she can keep her job. The debt would be owed to HMRC not the resident parent.

The only exception to payment would be victims of sexual abuse.